You are here: / / More than One Possible Cause of Icy Condition Required Grant of Summary...

More than One Possible Cause of Icy Condition Required Grant of Summary Judgment to Defendant

The Second Department affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a slip and fall case.  The plaintiff alleged that the black ice which caused the fall was the result of water dripping from a gutter on defendant’s property. It had been drizzling for several days prior to the fall and was drizzling on the day of the fall. The court determined the attempt to link the icy condition to the dripping gutter was too speculative to support the action:

A real property owner or a party in possession or control of real property will be held liable for injuries sustained in a slip-and-fall accident involving snow and ice on its property only if it created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of the condition … . “Where the facts proven show that there are several possible causes of an injury, for one or more of which the defendant was not responsible, and it is just as reasonable and probable that the injury was the result of one cause as the other, plaintiff cannot have a recovery, since he [or she] has failed to prove that the negligence of the defendant caused the injury” … .  Morreale v Esposito, 2013 NY Slip Op 05803, 2nd Dept 9-11-13

 

You might also like
No Duty Owed by Agent to Client—Client Never Requested Type of Insurance At Issue
DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING RE: WHETHER HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE VACATED; DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA, AND HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RESTORE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION TO THE CALENDAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ABSENT SPECIFIC AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES PLAINTIFF BANK NEED NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY AND CONTRACTUAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
Herniated Disc not “Serious Injury”—Insufficient Proof of Physical Limitations.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATOR OF A SKATING RINK PROVIDED PROPER SUPERVISION AND THEREFORE WHETHER THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS PUSHED TO THE ICE BY AN UNRULY SKATER (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER WAS ISSUED A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL SPACE WITH 557 PARKING SPACES; THE PERMIT WAS REVOKED BECAUSE THE TOWN CODE REQUIRED 624 PARKING SPACES; BECAUSE THE PERMIT WAS INVALID, PETITIONER COULD NOT INVOKE THE “DOCTRINE OF VESTED RIGHTS” FOR A VARIANCE ALLOWING 557 SPACES (SECOND DEPARTMENT).
SURGICAL PROCEDURES WERE DEEMED DISCRETE EVENTS WHICH DID NOT ANTICIPATE FURTHER TREATMENT, CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
DEFENDANT RAISED SUBSTANTIVE FACTUAL DISPUTES ABOUT THE EFFICACY AND LEGALITY OF METHODS USED BY THE POLICE TO IDENTIFY HIS IP ADDRESS AND THE CONTENTS OF HIS COMPUTER, SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS REQUIRED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Not Enough Time Passed to Invoke Constructive Notice of Icy Condition Under... Gaps in Treatment Precluded “Continuous Treatment Doctrine” in Medical Malpractice...